D&D (2024) How to fix multiclassing?

[UngeheuerLich]

I want them to fix both. Someone earlier noted that the 3.x style MC that 5e has is d&d wanting to have its cake & eat it too for the ease guidance of a class based system as well as the flexibility of a pointbuy system while just ignoring the problems it brings.

I disagree. The multiclass system is inherently fun. I am glad it is there.
It is one way to allow a level by level choice without overloading a single class with needless complexity.

 

[Pauln6]

I agree. But warlocks are boring is a different subject than multiclassing is bad.

IMO: Giving them an extra invocations (free agonizing blast), and letting them change it every long rest would help. Something they did with the ranger spells (free hunters mark, prepared spells) and that worked well.

Maybe have a few different Eldritch Blast shapes too. Eldritch Cone, Eldritch Burst, Eldritch Line... 3.5 had a big list.

That warlocks are more boring than multiclass warlocks could well be a multi-class issue if one is arguing for extra abilities for multiclass characters. I played in a group with two multi-class warlocks and one monk with Eldritch Blast from the Magical Adept feat. I found it so boring that my Rogue/Warlock just stopped using Eldritch Blast and I eventually multiclassed again into Sorcerer. I think the problem for me was that even a tome warlock doesn't have the option to gain enough magical ability. Warlocks need to get to 3 spell slots at a much lower level and have invocations to enhance more cantrips than just Eldritch Blast. Potential multiclass abuse might well be why this didn't happen.

 

[tetrasodium]

I disagree. The multiclass system is inherently fun. I am glad it is there.
It is one way to allow a level by level choice without overloading a single class with needless complexity.

I agree that it can be fun. Ive never said it should be removed. What I said is that there should be printed options for 2e style dualclassing & 2e style multi classing that a gm can point to & say "use this"

 

[mellored]

I agree that it can be fun. Ive never said it should be removed. What I said is that there should be printed options for 2e style dualclassing & 2e style multi classing that a gm can point to & say "use this"

More ways to multiclass would be good.

And really, a 13/13 class would probably be less powerful than a 20 class.
Maybe only get 1 feat at level 4, 8, etc.. or skip the subclasse levels (which they seem to be lining up at standard levels).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I agree that it can be fun. Ive never said it should be removed. What I said is that there should be printed options for 2e style dualclassing & 2e style multi classing that a gm can point to & say "use this"

Another option like that woud be something I like. 2e multiclassing was also fun. 3e had gestalt characters. They were efectively 2e multiclass characters without xp penalties. Someone here had a level progression for those characters, increasing classes alternately and then gaining a bonus level when certain levels were reached.

1/0
1/1
1/2
2/2
3/3
and so on or something like that.

I think this would be a good beginning. Maybe the idea of the opening post is not bad if it is an add on:

Change the feats to more generic:
Prereqisite: 2 character classes of equal level.
Benefit: you gain a level in both classes, but don't gain any hp or hit dice.

So your progression would be:

0/1
1/1
1/2
2/2
2/3
3/3
3/4
5/5
5/6
6/6
6/7
7/7
7/8
9/9
9/10
10/10
10/11
11/11
11/12
13/13

You still have 3 feats + 1 first level feat.

Not perfect but workable.

Then I thought: we probably should think about giving a few feats at total character levels. Maybe call them boons.
Would help all multiclass characters.

 

[mellored]

Dual class (in addition to regular multiclas, can't do both)

1: 1/0, just 1 level in your first class
2: 1/1
3: 2/2
4: feat
5: 3/3, no subclasses
6: 4/4, just one feat
7: 5/5
8: feat
9: 6/5
10: 6/6
11: 7/7
12: 8/8, just one feat
13: 9/8
14: 9/9
15: 10/10
16: feat
17: 11/11
18: 12/11
19: feat
20: 12/12

Or something like that.

 

[aurvay]

Another possible solution would be this: "Your proficiency bonus is not determined by your total character level, but by the class that you have the fewest levels in." Either get them class levels next to each other or get rekt. I'm also ok with granting feats at every 4th level by total character class in this method.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Another possible solution would be this: "Your proficiency bonus is not determined by your total character level, but by the class that you have the fewest levels in." Either get them class levels next to each other or get rekt. I'm also ok with granting feats at every 4th level by total character class in this method.

Why punish people for multiclassing?
Whith this idea, you can never say: hey, I was a wizard for 11 levels, now I want a level in fighter, because then your prof bonus goes down...
Also, even splits are also heavily punished. Thisbwould just kill multiclassing.

More options: cool. Taking away options: uncool...

 

[tetrasodium]

Why punish people for multiclassing?
Whith this idea, you can never say: hey, I was a wizard for 11 levels, now I want a level in fighter, because then your prof bonus goes down...
Also, even splits are also heavily punished. Thisbwould just kill multiclassing.

More options: cool. Taking away options: uncool...

"punish"? Who decides if the "optional" multiclassing rules are allowed or not? Is it Alice the gm who can choose to aow them or not? Is it Bob the player who complains Alice is "punishing" him to force her hand with peer pressure if she says no or only allows a more restrictive version of the "optional" rule she as gn seems to have no say over for eight or so years now?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

"punish"? Who decides if the "optional" multiclassing rules are allowed or not? Is it Alice the gm who can choose to aow them or not? Is it Bob the player who complains Alice is "punishing" him to force her hand with peer pressure if she says no or only allows a more restrictive version of the "optional" rule she as gn seems to have no say over for eight or so years now?

What?
This is not what I said...

I said: why do you want to restrict a perfectly fine rule by adding needlessly punishing rules. PB was deliberatley dependend on total character level to allow freedom of multiclassing.
Why are you so mad that people don't do even splits. Is your play rstricted by people who just use multiclassing as is?